Tag Archives: ICU

All US trauma centers verified by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) must now subscribe to the ACS Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP). This program allows each center to benchmark themselves against other trauma centers that are just like them (level, volume, acuity, etc). Every quarter, TQIP members receive a report that details their performance in a number of key categories. The report slices and dices a large number of data points, and shows how they compare to those other trauma centers.

One of the more interesting portions of the TQIP report deals with risk-adjusted complications. The one I wrote about yesterday, the “ICU bounce back,” is officially called an “unplanned ICU admission.”

I’ve had several trauma centers ask me what constitutes an unplanned ICU admission. Is it any bounce back? What about patients who were never in the ICU?

This questions is particularly important to me because my own center’s TQIP report shows that we have a significant number of unplanned ICU admissions. But I know for a fact that they are not surprises. We have an inpatient trauma unit, with capabilities somewhere between the usual ward bed and an ICU bed. Patients can get telemetry, continuous oximetry, vital signs every 2 hours, and more. It functions as a kind of step-down unit, so we frequently admit patients who may require ICU admission at other hospitals.

Every once in a while, a patient who is receiving care in the trauma unit shows signs that they are going to need a true ICU level of care. In that case, we promptly move them to the ICU before they decompensate any further.

Is that situation an “unplanned ICU admission?” In my opinion, no. The patient received the highest level of care while outside the ICU, and ultimately a considered decision was made to move them. In my mind, this is a “planned ICU admission.”

Bottom line: There are two issues at play if your “unplanned ICU admissions” get flagged on your TQIP report. The first is determining if it was truly unplanned. If the Rapid Response Team (RRT) was called, then it was almost certainly unplanned. But if the patient was being monitored properly, showed signs that they would need an ICU level of care, and was preemptively transferred there, it was not. Similarly, if one of your surgical specialists wants the patient transferred (e.g. MAP goals), then that is also a planned admission.

The second factor is figuring out why the admissions are getting reported to TQIP as unplanned. This is usually a trauma registrar issue. They may be looking for any ward to ICU transfer, and classifying it as unplanned. Educate all your registrars on the nuances of what is planned and what isn’t.

If you are on the receiving end of a TQIP variance on unplanned ICU admissions, use the drill-down tool to identify the exact patient records involved. Review the involved medical records, paying close attention to vital signs, monitoring, and all decision making leading up to the time of the ICU transfer. If it isn’t truly unplanned, educate your registrars. But if it is, make sure that it was properly dealt with by your trauma performance improvement program.

We’ve all experienced it. A seriously injured trauma patient is admitted to the ICU and begins the process of recovery. Everything looks well, and after a few days they’re transferred to a ward bed. But then they languish, never really doing what we expect. Finally (and usually in the middle of the night), they begin to look bad enough where we have to transfer them back to the ICU. Before or after the call to the Rapid Response Team. Yes, it’s the feared “unexpected readmission to ICU.”

What’s the problem here? A failure of the ICU team? Did they send the patient out too soon? Did we all miss something about the patient? And is there any way we can avoid this problem? The major issue is that these “bounce backs” tend to do poorly compared to patients who successfully stay in their ward bed. Estimates are that mortality for patients successfully and finally discharged from the ICU range from 4-8%, whereas the mortality in bounce back patients is 20-40%!

Researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston looked at the characteristics that defined the bounce back patient. They reviewed nearly 2000 patients discharged from their trauma ICU and analyzed the variables that predicted an unplanned bounce back. They noted the following interesting factoids:

More than two thirds of bounce backs occurred within 3 days

Males, patients with an initial GCS < 9, transfer during the day shift were the major risk factors

More comorbidities was associated with a higher chance of bounce back

Mortality in the bounce back group was 20%

The most common immediate factors causing bounce back were respiratory failure or bleeding

Bottom line: This is an intriguing single-institution study that supports my own personal observations. Fewer bounce backs occur at night because staffing tends to be lower and there is more resistance to transfers out of the ICU then. Both the ICU team and the ward team need to scrutinize every transfer carefully. Significant head injury or the presence of medical comorbidities should trigger a careful assessment to make sure that the transfer is appropriate. Otherwise, your patient may be placed in unnecessary jeopardy.

Next, I’ll discuss when an unexpected return to ICU is not an unexpected return!

Different hospitals have different arrangements for taking care of critically injured patients. All Level I or II trauma centers have at least a mixed med/surg ICU, with most level I centers having a dedicated surgical unit. A few have specific trauma or neuro-critical care ICUs.

In general, severely injured trauma patients do better when taken care of by trauma teams who have sufficient experience (volume). What about patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI)? Does the experience and volume of patients receiving care in the ICU make a difference?

A group of 12 trauma centers with varying ICU arrangements pooled their outcome data to see if the type of ICU makes a difference. All patients admitted with GCS<14 with CT evidence of TBI were evaluated if they were admitted to an ICU.

Here are the factoids:

2951 patients from the 12 centers met inclusion criteria

Type of ICU, age, and ISS were independent predictors of death

Patients admitted to a trauma ICU had the best probability of survival, and stayed high across all ISS scores

Those admitted to med/surg ICUs had higher probabilities of death, especially with higher ISS (> 38 or so)

Survival for isolated TBI patients in a neuro ICU was similar to a trauma ICU in patients with lower ISS (< 32)

Bottom line: This is a fascinating study, but it is giving us just a glimpse of the complete picture. What’s the difference between a med/surg ICU vs a trauma ICU. How much head trauma does a neuro ICU have to see? What kind of nurses work in them? What types of critical care physicians?

These questions are not answered in the abstract. And they may not be answered during the presentation at the meeting. But they are extremely important, and must be resolved in the next iteration of this study. Hopefully, there will be one!

A few papers have been published in the nursing
literature about the detrimental effects of interruptions experienced during
patient care. Unfortunately, these papers have never taken the next step to
determine why they occur, and what steps can be taken to decrease the frequency
of this problem.

A group at Wright State in Dayton OH tried to
tease apart the various aspects of this issue. They observed registered nurses
in a 23 bed SICU at a Level I trauma center. A total of 25 sessions covering 75
hours and multiple nurses were analyzed for the cause and duration of any interruption,
and whether it caused a switch from their primary task.

Here are the factoids:

Nurses were interrupted every 18
minutes on average

The dominant location was in the patient room (58%), and the most
common activity interrupted was documentation

Interruption by an attending or resident was less frequent (10%), but
ended up being longer than interruptions by other nurses (3 mins vs 1 min)

Interruptions of longer duration more commonly
caused the nurse to switch tasks

Bottom
line: This is a first look at the anatomy of nursing interruptions in the SICU.
They are much more common than you think. Task switching (either mentally or
physically) is something that humans do poorly. It always degrades performance,
and can ultimately lead to patient harm. Hopefully, operational protocols can
be developed to protect nurses from unnecessary or non-urgent interruptions to
improve quality of care.

Reference:
The anatomy of nursing interruptions in a surgical intensive care unit at a
trauma center. EAST 2016 Poster abstract #18.

We’ve all experienced it. A seriously injured trauma patient is admitted to the ICU and begins the process of recovery. Everything looks well, and after a few days they are transferred to a ward bed. But then they languish, never really doing what we expect. Finally (and usually in the middle of the night), they begin to look bad enough where we have to transfer them back to the ICU.

What’s the problem here? A failure of the ICU team? Did we all miss something? Is there any way we can avoid this problem? The major issue is that these “bounce backs” tend to do poorly compared to patients who successfully stay in their ward bed. Estimates are that mortality for patients successfully and finally discharged from the ICU range from 4-8%, whereas the mortality in bounce back patients is 20-40%!

Researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston looked at the characteristics that defined the bounce back patient. They looked at nearly 2000 patients discharged from the trauma ICU and analyzed the variables that predicted an unplanned bounce back. They noted the following interesting findings:

More than two thirds of bounce backs occurred within 3 days

Males, patients with an initial GCS < 9, transfer during the day shift, and the presence of comorobidities

More comorbidities was associated with a higher chance of bounce back

Mortality in the bounce back group was 20%

The most common factors causing bounce back were respiratory failure or bleeding

Bottom line: This is an intriguing single-institution study that supports my own personal observations. Fewer bounce backs occur at night because staffing tends to be lower and there is more resistance to transfers out of the ICU to make room. Both the ICU team and the ward team need to scrutinize every transfer carefully. Significant head injury or the presence of medical comorbidities should trigger a careful assessment to make sure that the transfer is appropriate. Otherwise, your patient may be placed in unnecessary jeopardy.

Posts navigation

Can’t Keep Up With Your Literature?

Sign up to receive the Trauma MedEd Newsletter, and get a free copy of my report on how to stay current. The newsletter is released every 1-2 months, and delivers four pages packed with trauma information you absolutely need to know! Subscribers get it a week before it's released on the website. Click the image to subscribe!Next issue (February): Fat Embolism

9 Tips To An Effective PIPS Program

Trauma System News interviewed me and produced this eBook on how to establish, build, and manage an effective Performance Improvement and Patient Safety program. Click the image above to visit their site and download your copy!

Merch!

I've had to say it so many times, I finally made a t-shirt! Available in multiple styles, for men and women. Check out the store!